Quote:
|
Where does this divide originate? I have thought about whether it is a case of marketing, but if so, then why do more writers of 'literary fiction' not push to be marketed as bestseller writers? Surely they want to make more money?
|
I think that at least in some cases, writers of "serious" fiction shy away from the marketing
because of this divide we're discussing. They'd rather have the prestige of writing "literature" than the fat pocketbook that can go along with "popular fiction." I'm thinking in particular of Jonathan Franzen--several years ago, Oprah Winfrey selected his book for her TV reading club, and he resisted it fiercely. He said he didn't want his book to be lumped in with the type of fiction she tended to choose. Now, his particular case is scarlet with his distaste for "women's fiction," whatever that is (and it's probably best I don't get started on
that rant
)--along with some admittedly very forgettable novels, Ms. Winfrey had previously chosen works by Toni Morrison, who can hardly be considered lowbrow.) But I think that in a larger sense, what Franzen was really protesting was the very idea that his novel could possibly appeal to the great unlettered populace. He was pledging his fidelity to the divide between readers of Proust and of People magazine, and totally ignoring not only the lucrative potential for his own novel, but the possibility that a novel could be both substantial ("serious") and popular. It's sad, really--he was selling his own novel short.
As for my own tastes, Umberto Eco and Margaret Atwood sit side-by-side on my shelf with the most formulaic of mystery novels. I'll read anything that's printed, but I have a great weakness for formula, as I think most readers do--it's just that some people prefer to refer to their preferred formula as "archetype."
And I'd just like to share that
The Catcher in the Rye, along with the rest of Salinger, was extremely important to me in my adolescence, which was itself rife with "angst-filled, overly symbolic drivel."
